-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Parsing compiler name & version from Spack environment to include in the performance log file #262
Changes from 2 commits
3d72c50
323ae11
b4f3658
8ba7561
b79f781
7b5e51e
7a02712
f696cd5
dd066c1
51c5713
49f2286
4850d38
aed6bc2
5ac953f
878aa5e
493c7bf
3559fec
57767c7
c17b12e
7c871e5
9fbc4f1
cbcaeeb
2e46df8
1177f71
1272d8c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -752,6 +752,8 @@ def spack_root_to_path(): | |
'%(check_environ)s|' | ||
'%(check_extra_resources)s|' | ||
'%(check_env_vars)s|' | ||
'%(check_compiler_name)s|' | ||
'%(check_compiler_version)s|' | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Don't you also want the variant fished out of the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Right now, seems like not needed anymore since There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Then maybe we should export the whole variant? And users of each app can choose to use it and unpack it or not. |
||
'%(check_tags)s' | ||
), | ||
'format_perfvars': ( | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There can be more than one package in the spec, so instead of the
[0]
element, we should write out a dictionary for each perflog column. Something like... | {'compiler_name_package1':'name1', 'compiler_name_package2':'name2', ...} | {'compiler_version_package1':'version1', 'compiler_version_package2':'version2', ...} | <other parts of the spec> ...|
The postprocessing would then have to be minimally modified to be able to parse this, and create a separate column for each key of each dictionary.